Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 861

control, N = 431

treatment, N = 431

p-value2

age

86

50.40 ± 13.00 (25 - 74)

50.29 ± 13.29 (25 - 74)

50.51 ± 12.87 (28 - 73)

0.936

gender

86

0.476

f

61 (71%)

29 (67%)

32 (74%)

m

25 (29%)

14 (33%)

11 (26%)

occupation

86

0.902

day_training

2 (2.3%)

2 (4.7%)

0 (0%)

full_time

10 (12%)

5 (12%)

5 (12%)

homemaker

6 (7.0%)

3 (7.0%)

3 (7.0%)

other

2 (2.3%)

0 (0%)

2 (4.7%)

part_time

15 (17%)

7 (16%)

8 (19%)

retired

21 (24%)

10 (23%)

11 (26%)

self_employ

4 (4.7%)

2 (4.7%)

2 (4.7%)

student

1 (1.2%)

0 (0%)

1 (2.3%)

t_and_e

2 (2.3%)

1 (2.3%)

1 (2.3%)

unemploy

23 (27%)

13 (30%)

10 (23%)

marital

86

0.686

cohabitation

1 (1.2%)

0 (0%)

1 (2.3%)

divore

10 (12%)

7 (16%)

3 (7.0%)

in_relationship

1 (1.2%)

1 (2.3%)

0 (0%)

married

22 (26%)

10 (23%)

12 (28%)

none

46 (53%)

22 (51%)

24 (56%)

seperation

3 (3.5%)

2 (4.7%)

1 (2.3%)

widow

3 (3.5%)

1 (2.3%)

2 (4.7%)

edu

86

0.789

bachelor

25 (29%)

9 (21%)

16 (37%)

diploma

18 (21%)

11 (26%)

7 (16%)

hd_ad

3 (3.5%)

2 (4.7%)

1 (2.3%)

postgraduate

7 (8.1%)

4 (9.3%)

3 (7.0%)

primary

5 (5.8%)

2 (4.7%)

3 (7.0%)

secondary_1_3

10 (12%)

6 (14%)

4 (9.3%)

secondary_4_5

16 (19%)

8 (19%)

8 (19%)

secondary_6_7

2 (2.3%)

1 (2.3%)

1 (2.3%)

fam_income

86

0.890

10001_12000

4 (4.7%)

1 (2.3%)

3 (7.0%)

12001_14000

5 (5.8%)

2 (4.7%)

3 (7.0%)

14001_16000

5 (5.8%)

2 (4.7%)

3 (7.0%)

16001_18000

3 (3.5%)

1 (2.3%)

2 (4.7%)

18001_20000

4 (4.7%)

3 (7.0%)

1 (2.3%)

20001_above

14 (16%)

7 (16%)

7 (16%)

2001_4000

13 (15%)

9 (21%)

4 (9.3%)

4001_6000

10 (12%)

4 (9.3%)

6 (14%)

6001_8000

9 (10%)

5 (12%)

4 (9.3%)

8001_10000

7 (8.1%)

3 (7.0%)

4 (9.3%)

below_2000

12 (14%)

6 (14%)

6 (14%)

medication

86

76 (88%)

39 (91%)

37 (86%)

0.501

onset_duration

86

15.31 ± 10.90 (0 - 56)

16.65 ± 12.05 (1 - 56)

13.97 ± 9.56 (0 - 35)

0.255

onset_age

86

35.09 ± 14.00 (14 - 64)

33.63 ± 12.83 (14 - 58)

36.55 ± 15.09 (15 - 64)

0.337

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 861

control, N = 431

treatment, N = 431

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

86

3.07 ± 1.20 (1 - 5)

3.09 ± 1.23 (1 - 5)

3.05 ± 1.17 (1 - 5)

0.858

recovery_stage_b

86

18.03 ± 2.64 (9 - 23)

17.86 ± 2.77 (9 - 23)

18.21 ± 2.53 (13 - 23)

0.543

ras_confidence

86

30.17 ± 4.73 (19 - 43)

29.63 ± 4.29 (19 - 40)

30.72 ± 5.12 (20 - 43)

0.286

ras_willingness

86

12.23 ± 1.94 (7 - 15)

12.07 ± 1.87 (9 - 15)

12.40 ± 2.01 (7 - 15)

0.439

ras_goal

86

17.63 ± 2.86 (12 - 24)

17.49 ± 2.81 (12 - 24)

17.77 ± 2.93 (12 - 24)

0.653

ras_reliance

86

13.09 ± 2.80 (8 - 20)

12.98 ± 2.61 (8 - 18)

13.21 ± 3.00 (8 - 20)

0.702

ras_domination

86

9.93 ± 2.33 (3 - 15)

10.42 ± 2.27 (3 - 15)

9.44 ± 2.30 (3 - 14)

0.051

symptom

86

30.36 ± 9.77 (14 - 56)

31.95 ± 9.92 (14 - 55)

28.77 ± 9.47 (15 - 56)

0.131

slof_work

86

22.85 ± 4.85 (10 - 30)

22.53 ± 4.46 (13 - 30)

23.16 ± 5.25 (10 - 30)

0.552

slof_relationship

86

25.85 ± 5.89 (11 - 35)

25.12 ± 5.96 (13 - 35)

26.58 ± 5.80 (11 - 35)

0.251

satisfaction

86

20.60 ± 6.70 (5 - 32)

18.86 ± 6.49 (5 - 29)

22.35 ± 6.53 (5 - 32)

0.015

mhc_emotional

86

11.20 ± 3.75 (3 - 18)

10.67 ± 3.47 (3 - 17)

11.72 ± 3.98 (4 - 18)

0.197

mhc_social

86

15.06 ± 5.24 (6 - 30)

15.14 ± 5.25 (7 - 30)

14.98 ± 5.28 (6 - 26)

0.886

mhc_psychological

86

22.15 ± 5.86 (6 - 36)

21.56 ± 5.43 (10 - 36)

22.74 ± 6.26 (6 - 36)

0.351

resilisnce

86

16.65 ± 4.47 (6 - 27)

16.28 ± 4.16 (6 - 24)

17.02 ± 4.78 (7 - 27)

0.444

social_provision

86

13.72 ± 2.84 (5 - 20)

13.26 ± 2.35 (8 - 20)

14.19 ± 3.22 (5 - 20)

0.130

els_value_living

86

17.15 ± 2.90 (5 - 25)

16.51 ± 2.36 (12 - 22)

17.79 ± 3.26 (5 - 25)

0.040

els_life_fulfill

86

12.66 ± 3.27 (4 - 20)

11.53 ± 3.05 (5 - 17)

13.79 ± 3.12 (4 - 20)

0.001

els

86

29.81 ± 5.58 (9 - 45)

28.05 ± 4.59 (18 - 36)

31.58 ± 5.96 (9 - 45)

0.003

social_connect

86

26.87 ± 9.17 (8 - 48)

27.84 ± 8.23 (8 - 45)

25.91 ± 10.02 (8 - 48)

0.332

shs_agency

86

14.62 ± 4.76 (3 - 24)

13.74 ± 4.32 (3 - 21)

15.49 ± 5.06 (3 - 24)

0.089

shs_pathway

86

16.58 ± 3.88 (4 - 24)

16.02 ± 3.71 (8 - 24)

17.14 ± 4.01 (4 - 23)

0.184

shs

86

31.20 ± 8.17 (7 - 47)

29.77 ± 7.66 (13 - 45)

32.63 ± 8.51 (7 - 47)

0.105

esteem

86

12.69 ± 1.52 (10 - 18)

12.93 ± 1.58 (10 - 18)

12.44 ± 1.44 (10 - 16)

0.137

mlq_search

86

15.02 ± 3.23 (3 - 21)

14.86 ± 3.07 (6 - 21)

15.19 ± 3.42 (3 - 21)

0.643

mlq_presence

86

13.57 ± 4.09 (3 - 21)

13.33 ± 3.68 (5 - 21)

13.81 ± 4.49 (3 - 21)

0.583

mlq

86

28.59 ± 6.51 (6 - 42)

28.19 ± 5.86 (12 - 40)

29.00 ± 7.14 (6 - 42)

0.565

empower

86

19.44 ± 4.03 (6 - 28)

18.95 ± 3.48 (11 - 24)

19.93 ± 4.51 (6 - 28)

0.264

ismi_resistance

86

14.78 ± 2.59 (5 - 20)

14.42 ± 2.17 (11 - 19)

15.14 ± 2.93 (5 - 20)

0.199

ismi_discrimation

86

11.44 ± 3.13 (5 - 19)

12.42 ± 2.85 (5 - 19)

10.47 ± 3.12 (5 - 19)

0.003

sss_affective

86

10.03 ± 3.72 (3 - 18)

10.56 ± 3.54 (3 - 18)

9.51 ± 3.87 (3 - 18)

0.194

sss_behavior

86

9.67 ± 3.96 (3 - 18)

10.40 ± 4.07 (3 - 18)

8.95 ± 3.75 (3 - 18)

0.091

sss_cognitive

86

8.26 ± 3.77 (3 - 18)

8.65 ± 3.96 (3 - 18)

7.86 ± 3.56 (3 - 18)

0.333

sss

86

27.97 ± 10.62 (9 - 54)

29.60 ± 10.50 (9 - 54)

26.33 ± 10.60 (9 - 54)

0.153

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.09

0.181

2.74, 3.45

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.047

0.255

-0.547, 0.454

0.856

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.223

0.273

-0.312, 0.758

0.416

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.250

0.383

-0.500, 1.00

0.515

Pseudo R square

0.022

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

17.9

0.419

17.0, 18.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.349

0.593

-0.813, 1.51

0.557

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.252

0.594

-1.41, 0.912

0.673

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.873

0.832

-0.757, 2.50

0.298

Pseudo R square

0.021

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

29.6

0.755

28.1, 31.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.09

1.067

-0.999, 3.18

0.308

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.351

0.825

-1.27, 1.97

0.672

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.12

1.155

-1.14, 3.38

0.337

Pseudo R square

0.032

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

12.1

0.302

11.5, 12.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.326

0.428

-0.513, 1.16

0.448

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.690

0.306

-1.29, -0.091

0.028

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.776

0.428

-0.063, 1.62

0.076

Pseudo R square

0.035

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.5

0.463

16.6, 18.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.279

0.654

-1.00, 1.56

0.671

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.944

0.534

-1.99, 0.103

0.083

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.83

0.748

0.363, 3.30

0.018

Pseudo R square

0.041

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

13.0

0.418

12.2, 13.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.233

0.591

-0.927, 1.39

0.695

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.461

0.425

-0.372, 1.29

0.283

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.870

0.595

-0.296, 2.04

0.149

Pseudo R square

0.039

ras_domination

(Intercept)

10.4

0.346

9.74, 11.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.977

0.490

-1.94, -0.017

0.049

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.542

0.460

-1.44, 0.359

0.244

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.67

0.644

0.408, 2.93

0.012

Pseudo R square

0.041

symptom

(Intercept)

32.0

1.485

29.0, 34.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-3.19

2.100

-7.30, 0.929

0.133

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.243

1.202

-2.11, 2.60

0.841

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.78

1.682

-5.08, 1.51

0.294

Pseudo R square

0.040

slof_work

(Intercept)

22.5

0.745

21.1, 24.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.628

1.054

-1.44, 2.69

0.553

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.793

0.635

-2.04, 0.453

0.218

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.172

0.889

-1.57, 1.91

0.847

Pseudo R square

0.010

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

25.1

0.888

23.4, 26.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.47

1.256

-0.997, 3.93

0.246

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-1.04

0.887

-2.78, 0.694

0.245

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.27

1.241

-1.16, 3.70

0.310

Pseudo R square

0.030

satisfaction

(Intercept)

18.9

1.036

16.8, 20.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

3.49

1.464

0.618, 6.36

0.019

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.896

1.235

-1.52, 3.32

0.471

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.244

1.729

-3.63, 3.15

0.888

Pseudo R square

0.062

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

10.7

0.567

9.56, 11.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.05

0.802

-0.526, 2.62

0.195

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.357

0.547

-0.716, 1.43

0.518

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.515

0.766

-2.02, 0.986

0.505

Pseudo R square

0.015

mhc_social

(Intercept)

15.1

0.838

13.5, 16.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.163

1.185

-2.49, 2.16

0.891

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.10

0.951

-0.758, 2.97

0.250

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.907

1.331

-3.52, 1.70

0.499

Pseudo R square

0.006

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.6

0.954

19.7, 23.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.19

1.349

-1.46, 3.83

0.381

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.765

1.029

-1.25, 2.78

0.461

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.446

1.441

-3.27, 2.38

0.758

Pseudo R square

0.009

resilisnce

(Intercept)

16.3

0.673

15.0, 17.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.744

0.951

-1.12, 2.61

0.436

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.019

0.743

-1.44, 1.48

0.980

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.17

1.040

-0.865, 3.21

0.264

Pseudo R square

0.025

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.3

0.441

12.4, 14.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.930

0.624

-0.293, 2.15

0.139

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.850

0.540

-1.91, 0.209

0.121

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.988

0.757

-0.496, 2.47

0.197

Pseudo R square

0.055

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.5

0.455

15.6, 17.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.28

0.643

0.018, 2.54

0.049

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.100

0.495

-0.870, 1.07

0.840

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.348

0.693

-1.01, 1.71

0.618

Pseudo R square

0.055

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

11.5

0.465

10.6, 12.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.26

0.657

0.968, 3.54

0.001

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.970

0.479

0.031, 1.91

0.048

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.643

0.671

-1.96, 0.672

0.343

Pseudo R square

0.112

els

(Intercept)

28.0

0.833

26.4, 29.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

3.53

1.178

1.23, 5.84

0.003

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.02

0.824

-0.593, 2.64

0.220

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.227

1.154

-2.49, 2.03

0.845

Pseudo R square

0.097

social_connect

(Intercept)

27.8

1.422

25.1, 30.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.93

2.011

-5.87, 2.01

0.340

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.504

1.232

-1.91, 2.92

0.684

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.86

1.724

-5.24, 1.52

0.286

Pseudo R square

0.021

shs_agency

(Intercept)

13.7

0.728

12.3, 15.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.74

1.029

-0.272, 3.76

0.093

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.280

0.781

-1.25, 1.81

0.721

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.334

1.093

-1.81, 2.48

0.761

Pseudo R square

0.039

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

16.0

0.587

14.9, 17.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.12

0.831

-0.512, 2.74

0.182

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.177

0.617

-1.03, 1.39

0.775

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.257

0.864

-1.95, 1.44

0.767

Pseudo R square

0.018

shs

(Intercept)

29.8

1.238

27.3, 32.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.86

1.751

-0.571, 6.29

0.105

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.450

1.284

-2.07, 2.97

0.728

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.098

1.798

-3.43, 3.62

0.957

Pseudo R square

0.032

esteem

(Intercept)

12.9

0.215

12.5, 13.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.488

0.303

-1.08, 0.106

0.110

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.035

0.328

-0.607, 0.677

0.916

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.288

0.459

-0.612, 1.19

0.534

Pseudo R square

0.025

mlq_search

(Intercept)

14.9

0.497

13.9, 15.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.326

0.703

-1.05, 1.70

0.644

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.328

0.601

-1.51, 0.851

0.588

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.043

0.842

-1.69, 1.61

0.959

Pseudo R square

0.005

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

13.3

0.624

12.1, 14.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.488

0.882

-1.24, 2.22

0.581

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.006

0.729

-1.43, 1.42

0.994

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.000

1.021

-2.00, 2.00

1.00

Pseudo R square

0.004

mlq

(Intercept)

28.2

1.007

26.2, 30.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.814

1.424

-1.98, 3.60

0.569

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.345

1.178

-2.65, 1.96

0.771

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.031

1.650

-3.27, 3.20

0.985

Pseudo R square

0.004

empower

(Intercept)

19.0

0.625

17.7, 20.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.977

0.883

-0.754, 2.71

0.272

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.090

0.587

-1.06, 1.24

0.879

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.451

0.822

-2.06, 1.16

0.586

Pseudo R square

0.011

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

14.4

0.383

13.7, 15.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.721

0.541

-0.340, 1.78

0.186

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.077

0.522

-0.947, 1.10

0.884

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.007

0.732

-1.43, 1.44

0.992

Pseudo R square

0.021

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

12.4

0.470

11.5, 13.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.95

0.665

-3.26, -0.651

0.004

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.664

0.505

-1.65, 0.327

0.195

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.887

0.708

-0.500, 2.27

0.216

Pseudo R square

0.072

sss_affective

(Intercept)

10.6

0.552

9.48, 11.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.05

0.780

-2.58, 0.483

0.183

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.092

0.539

-0.964, 1.15

0.865

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.18

0.754

-2.66, 0.299

0.124

Pseudo R square

0.049

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

10.4

0.580

9.26, 11.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.44

0.821

-3.05, 0.167

0.082

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.305

0.617

-1.51, 0.903

0.622

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.457

0.863

-2.15, 1.23

0.599

Pseudo R square

0.048

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

8.65

0.569

7.54, 9.77

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.791

0.805

-2.37, 0.788

0.329

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.944

0.522

-0.080, 1.97

0.077

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.82

0.731

-3.25, -0.389

0.016

Pseudo R square

0.047

sss

(Intercept)

29.6

1.585

26.5, 32.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-3.28

2.242

-7.67, 1.11

0.147

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.812

1.421

-1.97, 3.60

0.570

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-3.50

1.989

-7.40, 0.394

0.084

Pseudo R square

0.053

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.31) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.09 (95% CI [2.74, 3.45], t(125) = 17.13, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.45], t(125) = -0.18, p = 0.855; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.38])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.76], t(125) = 0.82, p = 0.413; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.64])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.50, 1.00], t(125) = 0.65, p = 0.513; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.84])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.41) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.86 (95% CI [17.04, 18.68], t(125) = 42.62, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.81, 1.51], t(125) = 0.59, p = 0.556; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.55])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-1.41, 0.91], t(125) = -0.42, p = 0.672; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.33])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.87, 95% CI [-0.76, 2.50], t(125) = 1.05, p = 0.294; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.91])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.63 (95% CI [28.15, 31.11], t(125) = 39.26, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.09, 95% CI [-1.00, 3.18], t(125) = 1.02, p = 0.306; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.63])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-1.27, 1.97], t(125) = 0.43, p = 0.671; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.39])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.12, 95% CI [-1.14, 3.38], t(125) = 0.97, p = 0.333; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.67])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.07 (95% CI [11.48, 12.66], t(125) = 39.91, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.51, 1.16], t(125) = 0.76, p = 0.447; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.58])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.69, 95% CI [-1.29, -0.09], t(125) = -2.26, p = 0.024; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.65, -0.05])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-0.06, 1.62], t(125) = 1.81, p = 0.070; Std. beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.81])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.49 (95% CI [16.58, 18.40], t(125) = 37.80, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-1.00, 1.56], t(125) = 0.43, p = 0.670; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.50])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.94, 95% CI [-1.99, 0.10], t(125) = -1.77, p = 0.077; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.03])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.83, 95% CI [0.36, 3.30], t(125) = 2.45, p = 0.014; Std. beta = 0.59, 95% CI [0.12, 1.06])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.98 (95% CI [12.16, 13.80], t(125) = 31.03, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.93, 1.39], t(125) = 0.39, p = 0.694; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.49])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.37, 1.29], t(125) = 1.08, p = 0.278; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.46])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.87, 95% CI [-0.30, 2.04], t(125) = 1.46, p = 0.143; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.72])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.51) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.42 (95% CI [9.74, 11.10], t(125) = 30.08, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.98, 95% CI [-1.94, -0.02], t(125) = -1.99, p = 0.046; Std. beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-0.85, -7.36e-03])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-1.44, 0.36], t(125) = -1.18, p = 0.238; Std. beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.16])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.67, 95% CI [0.41, 2.93], t(125) = 2.59, p = 0.010; Std. beta = 0.73, 95% CI [0.18, 1.29])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.95 (95% CI [29.04, 34.86], t(125) = 21.52, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.19, 95% CI [-7.30, 0.93], t(125) = -1.52, p = 0.129; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.09])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-2.11, 2.60], t(125) = 0.20, p = 0.840; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.78, 95% CI [-5.08, 1.51], t(125) = -1.06, p = 0.289; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.15])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.59e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.53 (95% CI [21.07, 24.00], t(125) = 30.25, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-1.44, 2.69], t(125) = 0.60, p = 0.551; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.56])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.79, 95% CI [-2.04, 0.45], t(125) = -1.25, p = 0.212; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.09])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-1.57, 1.91], t(125) = 0.19, p = 0.846; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.40])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 25.12 (95% CI [23.38, 26.86], t(125) = 28.27, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.47, 95% CI [-1.00, 3.93], t(125) = 1.17, p = 0.244; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.68])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.04, 95% CI [-2.78, 0.69], t(125) = -1.18, p = 0.239; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.12])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.27, 95% CI [-1.16, 3.70], t(125) = 1.03, p = 0.305; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.64])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.86 (95% CI [16.83, 20.89], t(125) = 18.21, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.49, 95% CI [0.62, 6.36], t(125) = 2.38, p = 0.017; Std. beta = 0.50, 95% CI [0.09, 0.91])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.90, 95% CI [-1.52, 3.32], t(125) = 0.73, p = 0.468; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.47])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-3.63, 3.15], t(125) = -0.14, p = 0.888; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.45])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.67 (95% CI [9.56, 11.79], t(125) = 18.81, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.05, 95% CI [-0.53, 2.62], t(125) = 1.30, p = 0.192; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.71])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.72, 1.43], t(125) = 0.65, p = 0.515; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.39])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-2.02, 0.99], t(125) = -0.67, p = 0.501; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.27])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.46e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.14 (95% CI [13.50, 16.78], t(125) = 18.07, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-2.49, 2.16], t(125) = -0.14, p = 0.891; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.40])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.10, 95% CI [-0.76, 2.97], t(125) = 1.16, p = 0.245; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.54])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.91, 95% CI [-3.52, 1.70], t(125) = -0.68, p = 0.496; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.31])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.83e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.56 (95% CI [19.69, 23.43], t(125) = 22.60, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.19, 95% CI [-1.46, 3.83], t(125) = 0.88, p = 0.379; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.60])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-1.25, 2.78], t(125) = 0.74, p = 0.458; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.44])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-3.27, 2.38], t(125) = -0.31, p = 0.757; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.38])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.28 (95% CI [14.96, 17.60], t(125) = 24.20, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-1.12, 2.61], t(125) = 0.78, p = 0.434; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.59])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-1.44, 1.48], t(125) = 0.03, p = 0.979; Std. beta = 4.34e-03, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.33])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.17, 95% CI [-0.86, 3.21], t(125) = 1.13, p = 0.259; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.73])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.26 (95% CI [12.39, 14.12], t(125) = 30.03, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.93, 95% CI [-0.29, 2.15], t(125) = 1.49, p = 0.136; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.72])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.85, 95% CI [-1.91, 0.21], t(125) = -1.57, p = 0.116; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.07])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.99, 95% CI [-0.50, 2.47], t(125) = 1.30, p = 0.192; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.83])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.51 (95% CI [15.62, 17.40], t(125) = 36.30, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.28, 95% CI [0.02, 2.54], t(125) = 1.99, p = 0.047; Std. beta = 0.42, 95% CI [5.97e-03, 0.83])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.87, 1.07], t(125) = 0.20, p = 0.839; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.35])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-1.01, 1.71], t(125) = 0.50, p = 0.616; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.56])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.11. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.53 (95% CI [10.62, 12.45], t(125) = 24.82, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.26, 95% CI [0.97, 3.54], t(125) = 3.43, p < .001; Std. beta = 0.70, 95% CI [0.30, 1.10])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [0.03, 1.91], t(125) = 2.02, p = 0.043; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [9.57e-03, 0.59])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.64, 95% CI [-1.96, 0.67], t(125) = -0.96, p = 0.338; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.21])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.10. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.05 (95% CI [26.41, 29.68], t(125) = 33.67, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.53, 95% CI [1.23, 5.84], t(125) = 3.00, p = 0.003; Std. beta = 0.62, 95% CI [0.21, 1.02])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.02, 95% CI [-0.59, 2.64], t(125) = 1.24, p = 0.215; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.46])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-2.49, 2.03], t(125) = -0.20, p = 0.844; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.35])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.84 (95% CI [25.05, 30.62], t(125) = 19.58, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.93, 95% CI [-5.87, 2.01], t(125) = -0.96, p = 0.337; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.21])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-1.91, 2.92], t(125) = 0.41, p = 0.683; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.31])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.86, 95% CI [-5.24, 1.52], t(125) = -1.08, p = 0.281; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.16])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.74 (95% CI [12.32, 15.17], t(125) = 18.89, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.74, 95% CI [-0.27, 3.76], t(125) = 1.70, p = 0.090; Std. beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.78])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-1.25, 1.81], t(125) = 0.36, p = 0.720; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-1.81, 2.48], t(125) = 0.31, p = 0.760; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.52])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.02 (95% CI [14.87, 17.17], t(125) = 27.28, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.12, 95% CI [-0.51, 2.74], t(125) = 1.34, p = 0.179; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.72])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-1.03, 1.39], t(125) = 0.29, p = 0.774; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.36])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-1.95, 1.44], t(125) = -0.30, p = 0.766; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.38])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.77 (95% CI [27.34, 32.19], t(125) = 24.04, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.86, 95% CI [-0.57, 6.29], t(125) = 1.63, p = 0.102; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.77])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-2.07, 2.97], t(125) = 0.35, p = 0.726; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.36])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-3.43, 3.62], t(125) = 0.05, p = 0.956; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.45])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.29) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.93 (95% CI [12.51, 13.35], t(125) = 60.25, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.49, 95% CI [-1.08, 0.11], t(125) = -1.61, p = 0.108; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.78, 0.08])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.68], t(125) = 0.11, p = 0.915; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.48])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.61, 1.19], t(125) = 0.63, p = 0.530; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.85])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.85e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.86 (95% CI [13.89, 15.83], t(125) = 29.91, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-1.05, 1.70], t(125) = 0.46, p = 0.643; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.53])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-1.51, 0.85], t(125) = -0.55, p = 0.585; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-1.69, 1.61], t(125) = -0.05, p = 0.959; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.50])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.58e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.33 (95% CI [12.10, 14.55], t(125) = 21.36, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-1.24, 2.22], t(125) = 0.55, p = 0.580; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.55])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -5.68e-03, 95% CI [-1.43, 1.42], t(125) = -7.79e-03, p = 0.994; Std. beta = -1.40e-03, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.35])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -7.28e-05, 95% CI [-2.00, 2.00], t(125) = -7.13e-05, p > .999; Std. beta = -1.80e-05, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.49])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.61) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.36e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.19 (95% CI [26.21, 30.16], t(125) = 27.99, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [-1.98, 3.60], t(125) = 0.57, p = 0.568; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.55])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-2.65, 1.96], t(125) = -0.29, p = 0.770; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-3.27, 3.20], t(125) = -0.02, p = 0.985; Std. beta = -4.70e-03, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.49])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.95 (95% CI [17.73, 20.18], t(125) = 30.35, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.98, 95% CI [-0.75, 2.71], t(125) = 1.11, p = 0.269; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.66])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-1.06, 1.24], t(125) = 0.15, p = 0.878; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-2.06, 1.16], t(125) = -0.55, p = 0.584; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.28])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.46) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.42 (95% CI [13.67, 15.17], t(125) = 37.67, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.34, 1.78], t(125) = 1.33, p = 0.183; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.71])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.95, 1.10], t(125) = 0.15, p = 0.883; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.44])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 7.18e-03, 95% CI [-1.43, 1.44], t(125) = 9.80e-03, p = 0.992; Std. beta = 2.86e-03, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.57])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.07. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.42 (95% CI [11.50, 13.34], t(125) = 26.43, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.95, 95% CI [-3.26, -0.65], t(125) = -2.94, p = 0.003; Std. beta = -0.62, 95% CI [-1.03, -0.21])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.66, 95% CI [-1.65, 0.33], t(125) = -1.31, p = 0.189; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.10])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.89, 95% CI [-0.50, 2.27], t(125) = 1.25, p = 0.210; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.72])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.56 (95% CI [9.48, 11.64], t(125) = 19.13, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.05, 95% CI [-2.58, 0.48], t(125) = -1.34, p = 0.180; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.13])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.96, 1.15], t(125) = 0.17, p = 0.865; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.31])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.18, 95% CI [-2.66, 0.30], t(125) = -1.56, p = 0.118; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.08])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.40 (95% CI [9.26, 11.53], t(125) = 17.91, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.44, 95% CI [-3.05, 0.17], t(125) = -1.76, p = 0.079; Std. beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-0.79, 0.04])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-1.51, 0.90], t(125) = -0.50, p = 0.620; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.23])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-2.15, 1.23], t(125) = -0.53, p = 0.596; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.32])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.65 (95% CI [7.54, 9.77], t(125) = 15.19, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.79, 95% CI [-2.37, 0.79], t(125) = -0.98, p = 0.326; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.21])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-0.08, 1.97], t(125) = 1.81, p = 0.071; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.53])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.82, 95% CI [-3.25, -0.39], t(125) = -2.49, p = 0.013; Std. beta = -0.49, 95% CI [-0.87, -0.10])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.60 (95% CI [26.50, 32.71], t(125) = 18.67, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.28, 95% CI [-7.67, 1.11], t(125) = -1.46, p = 0.144; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.11])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [-1.97, 3.60], t(125) = 0.57, p = 0.568; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.34])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.50, 95% CI [-7.40, 0.39], t(125) = -1.76, p = 0.078; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.04])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

417.787

426.412

-205.893

411.787

recovery_stage_a

random

6

419.949

437.200

-203.974

407.949

3.838

3

0.279

recovery_stage_b

null

3

633.424

642.049

-313.712

627.424

recovery_stage_b

random

6

636.749

654.000

-312.374

624.749

2.675

3

0.445

ras_confidence

null

3

771.603

780.229

-382.802

765.603

ras_confidence

random

6

772.114

789.365

-380.057

760.114

5.489

3

0.139

ras_willingness

null

3

527.129

535.754

-260.564

521.129

ras_willingness

random

6

526.341

543.592

-257.171

514.341

6.787

3

0.079

ras_goal

null

3

649.867

658.493

-321.934

643.867

ras_goal

random

6

648.279

665.530

-318.140

636.279

7.588

3

0.055

ras_reliance

null

3

617.369

625.995

-305.685

611.369

ras_reliance

random

6

611.615

628.866

-299.808

599.615

11.754

3

0.008

ras_domination

null

3

585.007

593.633

-289.504

579.007

ras_domination

random

6

582.567

599.818

-285.283

570.567

8.441

3

0.038

symptom

null

3

923.640

932.265

-458.820

917.640

symptom

random

6

924.612

941.863

-456.306

912.612

5.028

3

0.170

slof_work

null

3

745.401

754.027

-369.700

739.401

slof_work

random

6

748.385

765.636

-368.193

736.385

3.016

3

0.389

slof_relationship

null

3

805.314

813.939

-399.657

799.314

slof_relationship

random

6

807.559

824.810

-397.779

795.559

3.755

3

0.289

satisfaction

null

3

862.736

871.362

-428.368

856.736

satisfaction

random

6

861.763

879.014

-424.881

849.763

6.973

3

0.073

mhc_emotional

null

3

683.182

691.807

-338.591

677.182

mhc_emotional

random

6

687.268

704.519

-337.634

675.268

1.914

3

0.590

mhc_social

null

3

798.038

806.664

-396.019

792.038

mhc_social

random

6

802.464

819.715

-395.232

790.464

1.575

3

0.665

mhc_psychological

null

3

827.867

836.493

-410.933

821.867

mhc_psychological

random

6

832.493

849.744

-410.247

820.493

1.374

3

0.712

resilisnce

null

3

741.014

749.640

-367.507

735.014

resilisnce

random

6

742.836

760.087

-365.418

730.836

4.178

3

0.243

social_provision

null

3

641.242

649.868

-317.621

635.242

social_provision

random

6

640.347

657.598

-314.174

628.347

6.895

3

0.075

els_value_living

null

3

639.151

647.777

-316.576

633.151

els_value_living

random

6

639.138

656.389

-313.569

627.138

6.014

3

0.111

els_life_fulfill

null

3

649.457

658.083

-321.729

643.457

els_life_fulfill

random

6

640.461

657.712

-314.231

628.461

14.996

3

0.002

els

null

3

795.720

804.346

-394.860

789.720

els

random

6

790.025

807.276

-389.012

778.025

11.696

3

0.009

social_connect

null

3

916.147

924.773

-455.073

910.147

social_connect

random

6

919.088

936.339

-453.544

907.088

3.059

3

0.383

shs_agency

null

3

759.475

768.100

-376.737

753.475

shs_agency

random

6

761.111

778.363

-374.556

749.111

4.363

3

0.225

shs_pathway

null

3

699.186

707.812

-346.593

693.186

shs_pathway

random

6

703.327

720.578

-345.663

691.327

1.859

3

0.602

shs

null

3

894.991

903.617

-444.496

888.991

shs

random

6

897.657

914.908

-442.828

885.657

3.334

3

0.343

esteem

null

3

462.917

471.543

-228.459

456.917

esteem

random

6

465.638

482.889

-226.819

453.638

3.279

3

0.351

mlq_search

null

3

665.444

674.069

-329.722

659.444

mlq_search

random

6

670.503

687.754

-329.251

658.503

0.941

3

0.816

mlq_presence

null

3

721.834

730.460

-357.917

715.834

mlq_presence

random

6

727.478

744.729

-357.739

715.478

0.356

3

0.949

mlq

null

3

847.565

856.190

-420.782

841.565

mlq

random

6

852.999

870.250

-420.499

840.999

0.566

3

0.904

empower

null

3

705.817

714.443

-349.909

699.817

empower

random

6

710.374

727.625

-349.187

698.374

1.443

3

0.695

ismi_resistance

null

3

606.907

615.533

-300.454

600.907

ismi_resistance

random

6

610.665

627.916

-299.332

598.665

2.243

3

0.524

ismi_discrimation

null

3

649.807

658.433

-321.904

643.807

ismi_discrimation

random

6

646.749

664.000

-317.374

634.749

9.058

3

0.029

sss_affective

null

3

682.709

691.335

-338.355

676.709

sss_affective

random

6

681.040

698.291

-334.520

669.040

7.669

3

0.053

sss_behavior

null

3

700.958

709.583

-347.479

694.958

sss_behavior

random

6

701.038

718.289

-344.519

689.038

5.920

3

0.116

sss_cognitive

null

3

686.757

695.382

-340.378

680.757

sss_cognitive

random

6

684.091

701.342

-336.045

672.091

8.666

3

0.034

sss

null

3

952.314

960.940

-473.157

946.314

sss

random

6

950.408

967.659

-469.204

938.408

7.906

3

0.048

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

43

3.09 ± 1.18

43

3.05 ± 1.18

0.856

0.047

recovery_stage_a

2nd

22

3.32 ± 1.17

-0.224

23

3.52 ± 1.17

-0.476

0.560

-0.205

recovery_stage_b

1st

43

17.86 ± 2.75

43

18.21 ± 2.75

0.557

-0.164

recovery_stage_b

2nd

22

17.61 ± 2.66

0.118

23

18.83 ± 2.67

-0.292

0.126

-0.573

ras_confidence

1st

43

29.63 ± 4.95

43

30.72 ± 4.95

0.308

-0.383

ras_confidence

2nd

22

29.98 ± 4.39

-0.123

23

32.19 ± 4.42

-0.515

0.095

-0.775

ras_willingness

1st

43

12.07 ± 1.98

43

12.40 ± 1.98

0.448

-0.310

ras_willingness

2nd

22

11.38 ± 1.72

0.657

23

12.48 ± 1.73

-0.082

0.034

-1.048

ras_goal

1st

43

17.49 ± 3.03

43

17.77 ± 3.03

0.671

-0.150

ras_goal

2nd

22

16.54 ± 2.74

0.508

23

18.65 ± 2.76

-0.476

0.011

-1.134

ras_reliance

1st

43

12.98 ± 2.74

43

13.21 ± 2.74

0.695

-0.159

ras_reliance

2nd

22

13.44 ± 2.38

-0.315

23

14.54 ± 2.40

-0.911

0.124

-0.755

ras_domination

1st

43

10.42 ± 2.27

43

9.44 ± 2.27

0.049

0.599

ras_domination

2nd

22

9.88 ± 2.15

0.332

23

10.57 ± 2.16

-0.692

0.283

-0.425

symptom

1st

43

31.95 ± 9.74

43

28.77 ± 9.74

0.133

0.782

symptom

2nd

22

32.20 ± 7.97

-0.060

23

27.23 ± 8.06

0.378

0.040

1.220

slof_work

1st

43

22.53 ± 4.89

43

23.16 ± 4.89

0.553

-0.291

slof_work

2nd

22

21.74 ± 4.05

0.367

23

22.54 ± 4.09

0.287

0.511

-0.371

slof_relationship

1st

43

25.12 ± 5.83

43

26.58 ± 5.83

0.246

-0.481

slof_relationship

2nd

22

24.07 ± 5.03

0.343

23

26.81 ± 5.07

-0.075

0.072

-0.899

satisfaction

1st

43

18.86 ± 6.79

43

22.35 ± 6.79

0.019

-0.809

satisfaction

2nd

22

19.76 ± 6.20

-0.208

23

23.00 ± 6.23

-0.151

0.083

-0.752

mhc_emotional

1st

43

10.67 ± 3.72

43

11.72 ± 3.72

0.195

-0.559

mhc_emotional

2nd

22

11.03 ± 3.18

-0.190

23

11.56 ± 3.21

0.084

0.578

-0.284

mhc_social

1st

43

15.14 ± 5.49

43

14.98 ± 5.49

0.891

0.049

mhc_social

2nd

22

16.24 ± 4.94

-0.335

23

15.17 ± 4.97

-0.060

0.470

0.324

mhc_psychological

1st

43

21.56 ± 6.25

43

22.74 ± 6.25

0.381

-0.333

mhc_psychological

2nd

22

22.32 ± 5.53

-0.215

23

23.06 ± 5.57

-0.089

0.656

-0.208

resilisnce

1st

43

16.28 ± 4.41

43

17.02 ± 4.41

0.436

-0.289

resilisnce

2nd

22

16.30 ± 3.93

-0.007

23

18.22 ± 3.95

-0.464

0.105

-0.745

social_provision

1st

43

13.26 ± 2.89

43

14.19 ± 2.89

0.139

-0.491

social_provision

2nd

22

12.41 ± 2.67

0.449

23

14.32 ± 2.68

-0.073

0.018

-1.012

els_value_living

1st

43

16.51 ± 2.98

43

17.79 ± 2.98

0.049

-0.747

els_value_living

2nd

22

16.61 ± 2.64

-0.059

23

18.24 ± 2.66

-0.262

0.042

-0.950

els_life_fulfill

1st

43

11.53 ± 3.05

43

13.79 ± 3.05

0.001

-1.368

els_life_fulfill

2nd

22

12.50 ± 2.66

-0.588

23

14.12 ± 2.68

-0.199

0.045

-0.978

els

1st

43

28.05 ± 5.46

43

31.58 ± 5.46

0.003

-1.250

els

2nd

22

29.07 ± 4.71

-0.362

23

32.38 ± 4.75

-0.281

0.020

-1.169

social_connect

1st

43

27.84 ± 9.32

43

25.91 ± 9.32

0.340

0.461

social_connect

2nd

22

28.34 ± 7.75

-0.120

23

24.55 ± 7.84

0.324

0.105

0.904

shs_agency

1st

43

13.74 ± 4.77

43

15.49 ± 4.77

0.093

-0.647

shs_agency

2nd

22

14.02 ± 4.21

-0.104

23

16.10 ± 4.24

-0.228

0.102

-0.771

shs_pathway

1st

43

16.02 ± 3.85

43

17.14 ± 3.85

0.182

-0.524

shs_pathway

2nd

22

16.20 ± 3.38

-0.083

23

17.06 ± 3.40

0.038

0.397

-0.404

shs

1st

43

29.77 ± 8.12

43

32.63 ± 8.12

0.105

-0.647

shs

2nd

22

30.22 ± 7.09

-0.102

23

33.18 ± 7.15

-0.124

0.166

-0.669

esteem

1st

43

12.93 ± 1.41

43

12.44 ± 1.41

0.110

0.408

esteem

2nd

22

12.97 ± 1.39

-0.029

23

12.77 ± 1.39

-0.270

0.631

0.167

mlq_search

1st

43

14.86 ± 3.26

43

15.19 ± 3.26

0.644

-0.155

mlq_search

2nd

22

14.53 ± 2.99

0.156

23

14.82 ± 3.00

0.176

0.753

-0.134

mlq_presence

1st

43

13.33 ± 4.09

43

13.81 ± 4.09

0.581

-0.192

mlq_presence

2nd

22

13.32 ± 3.71

0.002

23

13.81 ± 3.73

0.002

0.661

-0.192

mlq

1st

43

28.19 ± 6.60

43

29.00 ± 6.60

0.569

-0.198

mlq

2nd

22

27.84 ± 5.99

0.084

23

28.62 ± 6.03

0.092

0.663

-0.191

empower

1st

43

18.95 ± 4.10

43

19.93 ± 4.10

0.272

-0.486

empower

2nd

22

19.04 ± 3.48

-0.045

23

19.57 ± 3.51

0.180

0.615

-0.262

ismi_resistance

1st

43

14.42 ± 2.51

43

15.14 ± 2.51

0.186

-0.387

ismi_resistance

2nd

22

14.50 ± 2.40

-0.041

23

15.22 ± 2.41

-0.045

0.312

-0.391

ismi_discrimation

1st

43

12.42 ± 3.08

43

10.47 ± 3.08

0.004

1.119

ismi_discrimation

2nd

22

11.76 ± 2.72

0.380

23

10.69 ± 2.74

-0.128

0.193

0.611

sss_affective

1st

43

10.56 ± 3.62

43

9.51 ± 3.62

0.183

0.567

sss_affective

2nd

22

10.65 ± 3.11

-0.050

23

8.42 ± 3.13

0.589

0.018

1.205

sss_behavior

1st

43

10.40 ± 3.81

43

8.95 ± 3.81

0.082

0.678

sss_behavior

2nd

22

10.09 ± 3.35

0.144

23

8.19 ± 3.37

0.358

0.060

0.893

sss_cognitive

1st

43

8.65 ± 3.73

43

7.86 ± 3.73

0.329

0.444

sss_cognitive

2nd

22

9.60 ± 3.15

-0.530

23

6.98 ± 3.18

0.492

0.007

1.465

sss

1st

43

29.60 ± 10.40

43

26.33 ± 10.40

0.147

0.677

sss

2nd

22

30.42 ± 8.72

-0.168

23

23.63 ± 8.81

0.556

0.011

1.401

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(120.17) = -0.18, p = 0.856, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-0.55 to 0.46)

2st

t(126.16) = 0.58, p = 0.560, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.49 to 0.89)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(115.22) = 0.59, p = 0.557, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.82 to 1.52)

2st

t(125.97) = 1.54, p = 0.126, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-0.35 to 2.79)

ras_confidence

1st

t(100.50) = 1.02, p = 0.308, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-1.02 to 3.21)

2st

t(127.00) = 1.68, p = 0.095, Cohen d = -0.78, 95% CI (-0.39 to 4.81)

ras_willingness

1st

t(97.68) = 0.76, p = 0.448, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.17)

2st

t(126.64) = 2.14, p = 0.034, Cohen d = -1.05, 95% CI (0.08 to 2.12)

ras_goal

1st

t(102.89) = 0.43, p = 0.671, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.02 to 1.58)

2st

t(126.91) = 2.57, p = 0.011, Cohen d = -1.13, 95% CI (0.49 to 3.73)

ras_reliance

1st

t(97.84) = 0.39, p = 0.695, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.94 to 1.41)

2st

t(126.68) = 1.55, p = 0.124, Cohen d = -0.75, 95% CI (-0.31 to 2.51)

ras_domination

1st

t(110.64) = -1.99, p = 0.049, Cohen d = 0.60, 95% CI (-1.95 to -0.01)

2st

t(126.15) = 1.08, p = 0.283, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.96)

symptom

1st

t(92.18) = -1.52, p = 0.133, Cohen d = 0.78, 95% CI (-7.36 to 0.98)

2st

t(121.88) = -2.08, p = 0.040, Cohen d = 1.22, 95% CI (-9.70 to -0.24)

slof_work

1st

t(93.20) = 0.60, p = 0.553, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-1.46 to 2.72)

2st

t(123.45) = 0.66, p = 0.511, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-1.60 to 3.20)

slof_relationship

1st

t(97.26) = 1.17, p = 0.246, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-1.03 to 3.96)

2st

t(126.51) = 1.82, p = 0.072, Cohen d = -0.90, 95% CI (-0.24 to 5.72)

satisfaction

1st

t(104.43) = 2.38, p = 0.019, Cohen d = -0.81, 95% CI (0.58 to 6.39)

2st

t(126.76) = 1.75, p = 0.083, Cohen d = -0.75, 95% CI (-0.43 to 6.91)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(96.23) = 1.30, p = 0.195, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.55 to 2.64)

2st

t(126.09) = 0.56, p = 0.578, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-1.35 to 2.42)

mhc_social

1st

t(102.07) = -0.14, p = 0.891, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-2.51 to 2.19)

2st

t(126.96) = -0.72, p = 0.470, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-3.99 to 1.85)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(99.99) = 0.88, p = 0.381, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-1.49 to 3.86)

2st

t(126.98) = 0.45, p = 0.656, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-2.54 to 4.01)

resilisnce

1st

t(100.93) = 0.78, p = 0.436, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-1.14 to 2.63)

2st

t(127.00) = 1.63, p = 0.105, Cohen d = -0.75, 95% CI (-0.41 to 4.25)

social_provision

1st

t(105.82) = 1.49, p = 0.139, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.31 to 2.17)

2st

t(126.61) = 2.41, p = 0.018, Cohen d = -1.01, 95% CI (0.34 to 3.50)

els_value_living

1st

t(100.32) = 1.99, p = 0.049, Cohen d = -0.75, 95% CI (0.00 to 2.56)

2st

t(126.99) = 2.06, p = 0.042, Cohen d = -0.95, 95% CI (0.06 to 3.19)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(98.33) = 3.43, p = 0.001, Cohen d = -1.37, 95% CI (0.95 to 3.56)

2st

t(126.79) = 2.03, p = 0.045, Cohen d = -0.98, 95% CI (0.04 to 3.19)

els

1st

t(97.00) = 3.00, p = 0.003, Cohen d = -1.25, 95% CI (1.20 to 5.87)

2st

t(126.42) = 2.35, p = 0.020, Cohen d = -1.17, 95% CI (0.52 to 6.10)

social_connect

1st

t(93.54) = -0.96, p = 0.340, Cohen d = 0.46, 95% CI (-5.92 to 2.06)

2st

t(123.89) = -1.63, p = 0.105, Cohen d = 0.90, 95% CI (-8.39 to 0.81)

shs_agency

1st

t(99.79) = 1.70, p = 0.093, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (-0.30 to 3.79)

2st

t(126.97) = 1.65, p = 0.102, Cohen d = -0.77, 95% CI (-0.42 to 4.57)

shs_pathway

1st

t(99.02) = 1.34, p = 0.182, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.53 to 2.76)

2st

t(126.90) = 0.85, p = 0.397, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-1.14 to 2.86)

shs

1st

t(98.55) = 1.63, p = 0.105, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (-0.61 to 6.33)

2st

t(126.83) = 1.39, p = 0.166, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (-1.24 to 7.16)

esteem

1st

t(120.90) = -1.61, p = 0.110, Cohen d = 0.41, 95% CI (-1.09 to 0.11)

2st

t(126.22) = -0.48, p = 0.631, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-1.02 to 0.62)

mlq_search

1st

t(105.20) = 0.46, p = 0.644, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.07 to 1.72)

2st

t(126.68) = 0.32, p = 0.753, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.49 to 2.05)

mlq_presence

1st

t(103.42) = 0.55, p = 0.581, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.26 to 2.24)

2st

t(126.86) = 0.44, p = 0.661, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.71 to 2.68)

mlq

1st

t(103.51) = 0.57, p = 0.569, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-2.01 to 3.64)

2st

t(126.85) = 0.44, p = 0.663, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-2.76 to 4.33)

empower

1st

t(95.54) = 1.11, p = 0.272, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.78 to 2.73)

2st

t(125.69) = 0.50, p = 0.615, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-1.54 to 2.59)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(112.54) = 1.33, p = 0.186, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.35 to 1.79)

2st

t(126.04) = 1.02, p = 0.312, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.69 to 2.15)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(99.86) = -2.94, p = 0.004, Cohen d = 1.12, 95% CI (-3.27 to -0.63)

2st

t(126.98) = -1.31, p = 0.193, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-2.68 to 0.55)

sss_affective

1st

t(96.60) = -1.34, p = 0.183, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-2.60 to 0.50)

2st

t(126.26) = -2.39, p = 0.018, Cohen d = 1.21, 95% CI (-4.07 to -0.39)

sss_behavior

1st

t(99.40) = -1.76, p = 0.082, Cohen d = 0.68, 95% CI (-3.07 to 0.19)

2st

t(126.94) = -1.90, p = 0.060, Cohen d = 0.89, 95% CI (-3.88 to 0.08)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(94.88) = -0.98, p = 0.329, Cohen d = 0.44, 95% CI (-2.39 to 0.81)

2st

t(125.22) = -2.77, p = 0.007, Cohen d = 1.47, 95% CI (-4.48 to -0.74)

sss

1st

t(94.32) = -1.46, p = 0.147, Cohen d = 0.68, 95% CI (-7.73 to 1.17)

2st

t(124.72) = -2.60, p = 0.011, Cohen d = 1.40, 95% CI (-11.95 to -1.61)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(63.02) = 1.75, p = 0.169, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.07 to 1.01)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(59.33) = 1.06, p = 0.588, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.55 to 1.80)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(50.93) = 1.81, p = 0.152, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.16 to 3.10)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(49.51) = 0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.52 to 0.69)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(52.15) = 1.68, p = 0.197, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.17 to 1.94)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(49.59) = 3.18, p = 0.005, Cohen d = -0.91, 95% CI (0.49 to 2.17)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(56.44) = 2.48, p = 0.032, Cohen d = -0.69, 95% CI (0.22 to 2.04)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(46.84) = -1.31, p = 0.396, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-3.91 to 0.83)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(47.33) = -0.99, p = 0.650, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-1.88 to 0.63)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(49.31) = 0.26, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.52 to 1.98)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(52.97) = 0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.79 to 3.09)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(48.80) = -0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.24 to 0.92)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(51.73) = 0.21, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.68 to 2.08)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(50.67) = 0.31, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.72 to 2.35)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(51.15) = 1.63, p = 0.218, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.28 to 2.66)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(53.71) = 0.26, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.93 to 1.21)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(50.83) = 0.92, p = 0.725, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.53 to 1.43)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(49.84) = 0.69, p = 0.981, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.62 to 1.27)

els

1st vs 2st

t(49.18) = 0.98, p = 0.663, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.83 to 2.42)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(47.50) = -1.12, p = 0.536, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-3.79 to 1.08)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(50.57) = 0.80, p = 0.856, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.93 to 2.16)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(50.18) = -0.13, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.30 to 1.14)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(49.94) = 0.43, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.99 to 3.09)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(63.66) = 1.00, p = 0.645, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.32 to 0.97)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(53.38) = -0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.56 to 0.82)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(52.43) = -0.01, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.45 to 1.44)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(52.48) = -0.32, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-2.71 to 1.95)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(48.46) = -0.62, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.52 to 0.80)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(57.59) = 0.16, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.95 to 1.12)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(50.60) = 0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.78 to 1.22)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(48.98) = -2.05, p = 0.091, Cohen d = 0.59, 95% CI (-2.15 to -0.02)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(50.37) = -1.26, p = 0.429, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.98 to 0.46)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(48.14) = -1.71, p = 0.188, Cohen d = 0.49, 95% CI (-1.91 to 0.15)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(47.87) = -1.93, p = 0.119, Cohen d = 0.56, 95% CI (-5.50 to 0.11)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(64.19) = 0.81, p = 0.840, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.33 to 0.77)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(60.27) = -0.42, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-1.45 to 0.94)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(51.36) = 0.42, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.31 to 2.01)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(49.87) = -2.25, p = 0.058, Cohen d = 0.66, 95% CI (-1.31 to -0.07)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(52.66) = -1.76, p = 0.169, Cohen d = 0.51, 95% CI (-2.02 to 0.13)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(49.95) = 1.08, p = 0.571, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.40 to 1.32)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(57.21) = -1.17, p = 0.493, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-1.47 to 0.38)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(47.05) = 0.20, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-2.18 to 2.67)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(47.56) = -1.24, p = 0.439, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-2.07 to 0.49)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(49.65) = -1.17, p = 0.493, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-2.83 to 0.74)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(53.52) = 0.72, p = 0.948, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.59 to 3.39)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(49.11) = 0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.75 to 1.46)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(52.21) = 1.16, p = 0.506, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.81 to 3.02)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(51.09) = 0.74, p = 0.926, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.31 to 2.84)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(51.59) = 0.03, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.48 to 1.52)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(54.31) = -1.56, p = 0.248, Cohen d = 0.45, 95% CI (-1.94 to 0.24)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(51.26) = 0.20, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.90 to 1.10)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(50.21) = 2.02, p = 0.098, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (0.00 to 1.94)

els

1st vs 2st

t(49.51) = 1.24, p = 0.445, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.64 to 2.69)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(47.73) = 0.41, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.98 to 2.99)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(50.98) = 0.36, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.30 to 1.86)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(50.57) = 0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.07 to 1.42)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(50.32) = 0.35, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-2.14 to 3.04)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(64.87) = 0.11, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.62 to 0.69)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(53.96) = -0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.54 to 0.88)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(52.96) = -0.01, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.48 to 1.46)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(53.01) = -0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-2.72 to 2.03)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(48.75) = 0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.10 to 1.28)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(58.43) = 0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.98 to 1.13)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(51.02) = -1.31, p = 0.394, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-1.68 to 0.36)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(49.30) = 0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.00 to 1.18)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(50.77) = -0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.55 to 0.94)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(48.42) = 1.80, p = 0.156, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.11 to 2.00)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(48.13) = 0.57, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-2.05 to 3.68)

Plot

Clinical significance